What you see is not all there is


Just because you don’t see something, doesn’t mean it’s not there.*

You don’t see everything there is to see. I don’t, we don’t, everybody don’t.

By the same token, just because you do see something, doesn’t mean it’s all there is to see. (That’s the same thing really.)

Jeffrey Saltzman cites Daniel Kahneman on the subject.

Daniel Kahneman coined the acronym WYSIATI which is an abbreviation for “What you see is all there is”. It is one of the human biases that he explores when he describes how human decision-making is not entirely based on rational thought.

Traditionally, economists believed in the human being as a rational thinker, that decisions and judgments would be carefully weighed before being taken. And much of traditional economic theory is based on that notion. Dr. Kahneman’s life’s work (along with his co-author Dr. Amos Tversky) explodes that notion and describes many of the short-comings of human decision-making. He found that many human decisions rely on automatic or knee-jerk reactions, rather than deliberative thought. And that these automatic reactions (he calls them System 1 thinking) are based on heuristics or rules of thumb that we develop or have hard-wired into our brains. System 1 thinking is very useful in that it can help the individual deal with the onslaught of information that impinges on us each and every day, but the risk is when a decision that one is faced with should be thought through rather than based on a knee-jerk reaction.

System 1 decisions are easy, they are comfortable, and unfortunately they can also be wrong. But wrong in the sense that if one learned how to take a step back and allow for more deliberative thought prior to the decision, some of these wrong decisions or judgments could be avoided.

One of those would be items like thinking about whether there is a lot of sexism or racism or homophobia or classism or xenophobia etc in your society. You think about it – nope, not much comes to mind – you conclude that there isn’t much. Now imagine that the you doing the thinking is male and white and straight and securely middle-class and native-born. Do you see the problem? What comes up on the screen when you think about whether there is a lot of sexism or racism etc is going to be what you see, and what you see is going to be a product of what you’ve been in a position to see, which will be different from what women and people of color etc are in a position to see. See what I’m getting at? You can’t tell, just be flicking quickly through your experience, how prevalent sexism and racism and the rest are. You can’t. Your experience isn’t universal; it isn’t all there is.

WYSIATI is the notion that we form impressions and judgments based on the information that is available to us. For instance we form impressions about people within a few seconds of meeting them. In fact, it has been documented that without careful training interviewers who are screening job applicants will come to a conclusion about the applicant within about 30 seconds of beginning the interview. And when tested these initial notions are often wrong. Interviewers who are trained to withhold judgment about someone do a better job at applicant screening, and the longer that judgment is delayed the better the decision.

Relying on what you have yourself seen for your view of how much sexism and racism there is in your society is not a good way to figure that out. You need to delay judgment and gather more information.

*Ever noticed what a…grammar-free construction that is? Yet it works anyway? I use it all the time; I’d be lost without it; but it’s grammatically…eccentric.

Comments

  1. rorschach says

    One of those would be items like thinking about whether there is a lot of sexism or racism or homophobia or classism or xenophobia etc in your society.

    There is another bias present in that example, the availability heuristic. Kahneman’s book can not be highly enough recommended.

    WYSIATI is more a reflection on how we come to form intuitive answers or notions, via the fast-thinking system 1. This can be shown for example in the bat and ball problem:

    A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

    Try it, see what solution comes easily to your mind. It kind of tests your brain’s “laziness”.

  2. suttkus says

    I always called that “Presuming the factuality of ignorance”, i.e., where one presumes that one’s ignorance of a thing represents the fact of the thing’s non-existence.

  3. aziraphale says

    *Ever noticed what a…grammar-free construction that is? Yet it works anyway? I use it all the time; I’d be lost without it; but it’s grammatically…eccentric.

    Being of a certain age (oh, well, 74 if you must know) I find that construction annoying. I would have preferred “Just because you don’t see something, it doesn’t follow that it’s not there.” and that’s what you will find in older books.

    But otherwise, yes. Quoting Kahneman is always good. It’s easy to see ourselves as automatically rational.

  4. John Morales says

    [OT]

    aziraphale,

    A type of Yodaspeak, it is.

    Reversing the reversal: “doesn’t mean it’s not there Just because you don’t see something”

  5. Brony says

    rorschach beat me to the availability heuristic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
    Only basing decisions off of what tends to be in ones perception is the availability heuristic. Getting past that requires one to develop system one responses where one looks at the perceptions of others* and includes them in decision making. It’s a considerable thing in a society that actively creates social behaviors that are meant to prevent people from considering other perspectives. It’s also considerable because one has to not only become aware that they have a need to include other perspectives, but then they need to figure out how to develop tools to investigate and assess other perspectives.

    *Complicated by the fact that most people will tend to tell you how they feel about what they are talking about rather than describe what they are talking about in a way that helps you to understand.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *